Student engagement is a crucial predictor of learning outcomes. The study constructed measurement indicators primarily based on five dimensions: learning beliefs, behavioral tendencies, emotional attitudes, self-efficacy in learning ability, and self-efficacy in learning behavior. It collected questionnaire data from 347 students who had been promoted from junior college to undergraduate studies. The survey data were processed using correlation analysis, regression analysis, and the K-means clustering algorithm. The study found that learning attitudes and learning self-efficacy are significantly positively correlated with learning engagement and can predict student learning engagement at an 82% level; the student population is mainly divided into three types: proactive explorers, passive obstacles, and general passives, with proportions of 32.56%, 26.51%, and 40.92%, respectively; the three different types of student groups show significant differences in learning engagement (p < 0.05), with proactive explorers having the highest level of learning engagement, general passives in the middle, and passive obstacles at the lowest. To enhance student engagement, it is suggested that teachers should pay attention to fostering correct learning attitudes in students, take proactive measures to enhance students’ self-efficacy in learning, and adhere to the educational concept of personalized teaching throughout the teaching process, implementing differentiated teaching strategies such as layered instruction to more effectively meet individualized student needs.
DziubanCGrahamCRMoskalPD, et al.Blended learning: The new normal and emerging technologies. Int J Educ Technol High Educ2018; 15(1): 1–16.
2.
YuZXuWSukjairungwattanaP. Meta-analyses of differences in blended and traditional learning outcomes and students' attitudes. Front Psychol2022; 13: 926947.
3.
VernadakisNAntoniouPGiannousiM, et al.Comparing hybrid learning with traditional approaches on learning the Microsoft Office Power Point 2003 program in tertiary education. Comput Educ2011; 56(1): 188–199.
4.
ChenJ. Effectiveness of blended learning to develop learner autonomy in a Chinese university translation course. Educ Inf Technol2022; 27(9): 12337–12361.
5.
ChengXMoWDuanY. Factors contributing to learning satisfaction with blended learning teaching mode among higher education students in China. Front Psychol2023; 14: 1193675.
6.
ZhaoW. An empirical study on blended learning in higher education in the “internet+” era. Educ Inf Technol2022; 27: 8705–8722.
7.
FredricksJAFilseckerMLawsonMA. Student engagement, context, and adjustment: Addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues. Learn InStruct2016; 43: 1–4.
8.
YangYDZhouCLWangZQ. The relationship between self-control and learning engagement among Chinese college students: the chain mediating roles of resilience and positive emotions. Front Psychol2024; 15: 1331691.
9.
JohnKV. An empirical investigation into the extent university students utilise mobile educational applications for learning. Acta inform Malays2022; 6(1): 25–33.
10.
Bonneville-RoussyAVallerandRJBouffardT. The roles of autonomy support and harmonious and obsessive passions in educational persistence. Learn Indiv Differ2013; 24: 22–31.
11.
DoganU. Student engagement, academic self-efficacy, and academic motivation as predictors of academic performance. Anthropol2015; 20(3): 553–561.
12.
PikeGRSmartJCEthingtonCA. The mediating effects of student engagement on the relationships between academic disciplines and learning outcomes: An extension of Holland’s theory. Res High Educ2012; 53(5): 550–575.
13.
CariniRMKuhGDKleinSP. Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Res High Educ2006; 47: 1–32.
14.
FredricksJABlumenfeldPCParisAH. School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev Educ Res2004; 74(1): 59–109.
15.
ReeveJ. A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In: Handbook of research on student engagement. Boston, MA: Springer US, 2012, pp. 149–172.
16.
Nelson LairdTFSeifertTAPascarellaET, et al.Deeply affecting first-year students' thinking: Deep approaches to learning and three dimensions of cognitive development. J High Educ2014; 85(3): 402–432.
17.
JiaXCaiLLinL, et al.The relationship between high school students' perceived teacher support and academic engagement: The chained mediation effect of academic self-efficacy and achievement goal orientation. Psychol Dev Educ2020; 36(06): 700–707.
18.
ChenJJJiangTNLiuMF. Family socioeconomic status and learning engagement in Chinese adolescents: The multiple mediating roles of resilience and future orientation. Front Psychol2021; 12: 714346.
19.
ShaoYKangS. The association between peer relationship and learning engagement among adolescents: The chain mediating roles of self-efficacy and academic resilience. Front Psychol2022; 13: 938756.
20.
GetenetSCantleRRedmondP, et al.Students’ digital technology attitude, literacy, and self-efficacy and their effect on online learning engagement. Int J Educ Technol High Educ2024; 21(1): 3.
21.
SinghKGranvilleMDikaS. Mathematics and science achievement: Effects of motivation, interest, and academic engagement. J Educ Res2002; 95(6): 323–332.
22.
FazioRHSanbonmatsuDMPowellMC, et al.On the automatic activation of attitudes. J Pers Soc Psychol1986; 50(2): 229–238.
23.
ErdoğduMY. The relationship between school burnout and school engagement: The mediating role of attitude toward learning. Croatian Journal of Education-Hrvatski Casopis Za Odgoj I Obrazovanje2020; 22(1): 241–262.
24.
YinH. What motivates Chinese undergraduates to engage in learning? Insights from a psychological approach to student engagement research. High Educ2018; 76(5): 827–847.
25.
WeiXSaabNAdmiraalW. What rationale would work? Unfolding the role of learners’ attitudes and motivation in predicting learning engagement and perceived learning outcomes in MOOCs. Int J Educ Technol High Educ2024; 21(1): 5.
26.
ChenLBaeSRBattistaC, et al.Positive attitude toward math supports early academic success: Behavioral evidence and neurocognitive mechanisms. Psychol Sci2018; 29(3): 390–402.
27.
BanduraA. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1986, p. 324.
28.
SchaufeliWBSalanovaMGonzález-RomáV, et al.The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J Happiness Stud2002; 3: 71–92.
29.
WuHLiSZhengJ, et al.Medical students’ motivation and academic performance: the mediating roles of self-efficacy and learning engagement. Med Educ Online2020; 25(1): 1742964.
30.
LuoQChenLYuD, et al.The mediating role of learning engagement between self-efficacy and academic achievement among Chinese college students. Psychol Res Behav Manag2023; 16: 1533–1543.
31.
HuYFangCWuJ, et al.Investigating the interrelationship among academic emotions, classroom engagement, and self-efficacy in the context of EFL learning in smart classrooms in China. Aust J Psychol2024; 76(1): 2300460.
32.
ZhangDGaoSRenL. A study on the mechanisms of teachers’ academic emotions and motivational beliefs on learning engagement in the context of online training. Front Psychol2023; 14: 1255660.
33.
MartinDPRimm-KaufmanSE. Do student self-efficacy and teacher-student interaction quality contribute to emotional and social engagement in fifth grade math?J Sch Psychol2015; 53(5): 359–373.
34.
CarmeliAPengACSchaubroeckJM, et al.Social support as a source of vitality among college students: The moderating role of social self‐efficacy. Psychol Sch2021; 58(2): 351–363.
ZhangJXSchwarzerR. Measuring optimistic self-beliefs: A Chinese adaptation of the general self-efficacy scale. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient1995; 38(3): 174–181.
37.
SeppäläPMaunoSFeldtT, et al.The construct validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: Multisample and longitudinal evidence. J Happiness Stud2009; 10: 459–481.
38.
AhmedMSerajRIslamSMS. The k-means algorithm: A comprehensive survey and performance evaluation. Electronics2020; 9(8): 1295.
39.
LikasAVlassisNVerbeekJJ. The global k-means clustering algorithm. Pattern Recogn2003; 36(2): 451–461.
40.
ShensaASidaniJEDewMA, et al.Social media use and depression and anxiety symptoms: A cluster analysis. Am J Health Behav2018; 42(2): 116–128.
41.
IatrellisOSavvasIΚFitsilisP, et al.A two-phase machine learning approach for predicting student outcomes. Educ Inf Technol2021; 26: 69–88.
42.
KimMKXieKChengSL. Building teacher competency for digital content evaluation. Teach Teach Educ2017; 66: 309–324.
43.
GeremiasRLLopesMPSoaresAE. Psychological capital profiles and their relationship with internal learning in teams of undergraduate students. Front Psychol2022; 13: 776839.
44.
NongWYeJHChenP, et al.A study on the blended learning effects on students majoring in preschool education in the post-pandemic era: An example of a research-method course in a Chinese university. Front Psychol2023; 13: 962707.
45.
RyanRMDeciEL. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemp Educ Psychol2020; 61: 101860.
46.
HsiehTL. Motivation matters? The relationship among different types of learning motivation, engagement behaviors, and learning outcomes of undergraduate students in Taiwan. High Educ2014; 68: 417–433.
